Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1887-03-05

every nOHeSt uiSuWd1 lhA. nv Oo'e%A-
ment, finding itself in possession of two
millions Of dollars which is due to a cor
poration, takes forcible possession, and
converts the money to its own use,
upon the theory that ten years hence
an obligation against the corpora
ton will mature 1t does this with
out allegation that the corporation
is attempting to commit any fraud, without
any assumption that the corporation is not
a party observant of all the covenants be-
tween itself and the Government, without
the slightest intimation or claim that any
part of the obligation due from the cor
poration to the Government has matured (;
and the Chronicle, with enfeebled moral
conviction, comes to its rescue with the
pitiful plea that the corporation ought to
be content because no legal obstacle exists
to even greater act of wrong and op-
preston.
"The Constitution Of the United States,
which is the supreme law of the land"
says the Chronicle, nowhere provides that
Congress may not pass law impairing the
obligation of contract The inhibition
is limited expressly to the States, and does
not apply to the United States"
To the conception of the Chronicle, the
trainers of the Constitution deemed it a
monstrous invasion of the rights of citi-
zens to permit the passage of a law i'm
pairing the obligation of contracts.
Against this species of scoundrelism in
legislation it took pains to protect the eiti-
zens of this country as against the action
of the States but it reserved to the Gov
eminent of the United States the power
to abrogate at will its undertaking, regard
less of the injury which might be inflicted,
and unmipdful of the tyranny which
would be established by that practice.
How soothingly congenial is any theory of
scoundrelism to the mind of scoundrel.
The trainers of the Constitution evidently
had some dim notion that States and Gov
ernments were bound by the same law of
natural honesty which should guide the
conduct of individuals; that that pro-
eeeding which would be outrageous, mon
strous and wrong in a State could not be
lovely, honest and virtuous in nation !;
that the standard of honesty applicable to
the dealings of individuals with each
other should be maintained as between
the States and individuals, or between in
dividual citizens of State. But, to the
Chronicles conception, the founders of the
Government reserved the right to practice
this species of tyranny and outrage as one
of the high and noble prerogatiyes Of the
General Government.
At the time of the adoption of the Con-
stitution the preservation of the rights of
the citizen was relocated to the States, and
the object of the trainers of the Constitu-
ton of the United States was to protect
the citizens of the United States whose
citizenship had root primarily in the States
of which they were residents against that
species of legislative tyranny which would
impair the obligation of a past contract.
The group of powers prohibited by the
Constitution to the States, in which that
under consideration is found, is very sig
nifcant and instructive. The Constitution
says; :" No State shall pass any bill of at
tainder, ex post faeto law, law impairing
the obligation of contract, or grant any
title of nobility" All these prohibitions
are grouped as cognate attributes of abso-
lutism. Now, does the Chronicle contend
that no legal obstacle exists to the passage
of bill Of attainder, ex post facto law, or
law impairing the obligation of contract,
or the granting of a title of nobility, by
the Congress of the United States? The
Constitution was bill Of rights established
as the supreme law of the land, guaran-
teeing to the citizens of the United States
protection against the usurpations of the
old forms of monarchy and tyranny
and the Chronicle, as the pretended friend
of the people, stands forth by the logic of
its apology for Governmental dishonesty,
to declare that there exists no legal obsta-
Gle to the passage of bill of attainder,
ex post facto law, law impairing the obi
cation of contract. or the granting of
titles Of nobility by the Congress of the
United States, simply because the exercise
Of these powers was denied to the States by
the National Constitution, and not express
" prohibited to the General Government.
1t was clearly the intention Of the Consti-
tuition to protect the citizens of the United
States against all these acts of tyranny and
oppression. The prohibition of these pow
ers to the State establishes standards of
public honesty for the States, and guaran-
tees a degree of civil liberty to the citi-
zens of the United States by which the
General Government is itself bound. I'm
der the Constitution citizen is guar
anteed against the wrong OF attalnted
blood, the injustice of an ex post faeto
law, the legislative dishonesty of impair
ing the obligation of past contract, and
the monstrous absurdity of granting titles
of nobility. All these Acts are prohibited
to the States in a single sentence. And
now comes a pretended friend of civil lib
erty and popular rights, and for the pur-
pose of Disgusting its illicit practice of
commerce with corporations and monetary
associations, declares that the General
Government has reserved to itself the
right of exercising all these attributes of
absolutisu- that the Government is not
bound by the standards of honesty estab
ed for the States. To maintain its appear
anee of hostility to corporations, the Chron-